2009/12/10 John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.orgwrote:
In essence:
return
2009/12/10 Brett Wilson bre...@chromium.org
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org
wrote:
btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from
different
repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
Chrome's code.
Most
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.org wrote:
In essence:
return DoWork(foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
DoWork(posix_specific)
#endif
; // -- Lint complains about this guy
I'd prefer this:
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
return DoWork(foo)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.org wrote:
2009/12/10 Brett Wilson bre...@chromium.org
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org
wrote:
btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from
different
repositories,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.org wrote:
In essence:
return DoWork(foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
DoWork(posix_specific)
#endif
; // -- Lint complains about this guy
I'd
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:14:32AM -0800, Scott Hess wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.org wrote:
In essence:
return DoWork(foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson ja...@mandelson.orgwrote:
If something extra in an expression is a common case, I've sometimes
seen it done like:
return DoWork(foo) POSIX_ONLY( DoWork(posix_specific));
where POSIX_ONLY will expand to nothing or its argument.
It's ugly,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson ja...@mandelson.org
wrote:
If something extra in an expression is a common case, I've sometimes
seen it done like:
return DoWork(foo) POSIX_ONLY(
There are cases where you'll want to flout the linter, but this isn't
one of them. Scott and Peter have both posted viable workarounds that
don't hamper readability (and in fact improve it relative to the
snippet Jonathan is asking about.) Personally, I prefer Scott's, but
Peter's is good too.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Shall be Unnamed @google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson ja...@mandelson.org
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.orgwrote:
In essence:
return DoWork(foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
DoWork(posix_specific)
#endif
; // -- Lint complains about this guy
I'd
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon j...@chromium.orgwrote:
In essence:
return DoWork(foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
Lately I've been seeing more and more // NOLINT added to the code. It's
great that people are running lint to make sure that they're following the
guidelines, but I personally find adding comments or gibberish to our code
for tools that are supposed to make the code quality better happy/more
Agreed. There are certain situations where conforming to lint
expectations leads to messier code. I just checked in a CL that
contains a section of lines longer than 80 cols. Trying to wrap these
lines would make the definitions unreadable. It's one thing to have
lint report zero errors; it's
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org wrote:
Lately I've been seeing more and more // NOLINT added to the code. It's
great that people are running lint to make sure that they're following the
guidelines, but I personally find adding comments or gibberish to our
I didn't even know that I could disable the linter like that. Good to
know---dozens more NOLINTs coming up!
Jokes aside, I agree the linter seems a little draconian, especially as it
seems to apply to all code in the files you touch, not just your changes.
-- Evan Stade
--
Chromium Developers
btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from different
repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
Chrome's code.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
I didn't even know that I could disable the linter like that.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org wrote:
btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from different
repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
Chrome's code.
Most of the Chrome NOLINTs look like the're around
If there are consistent patterns of NOLINT usage, I can suppress the
whole error class.
Also, the linter is only automatically run on chrome/ and app/, IIRC.
-- Elliot
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Brett Wilson bre...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek
19 matches
Mail list logo
